 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
 On Our Own Terms: General Discussion [all categories]
 The Issues
 Physician-Assisted Suicide (Page 2)
|
| This topic is 3 pages long: 1 2 3 | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Physician-Assisted Suicide |
|
Robert Lewis Member Posts: 6 |
posted 09-12-2000 02:01 PM
  
quote: The experience with my friend I've written about elsewhere on these boards differs from this. His neurological condition had progressed to the point where it was *likely* he would die as a result within a few weeks or months, but was by no means certain. He applied to the local hospice (he was already in a nursing home) to stay there when he refused his insulin. Perhaps the hospice would have not "dragged out" his death from the neurological disease - perhaps they would have allowed him to refuse a feeding tube and mechanical respiration (and allowed him to either suffocate or starve to death), perhaps not. But they refused to admit him to the hospice, because he intended to refuse treatment for his diabetes. At best, under the hospice's "care," he could face dying slowly and painfully over weeks or months from the untreatable disease, but he could not choose to die in a few days, with his pain mediated by medication, of a disease that was treatable. That is, in my book, "dragging out" the end for the patient. A doctor on the program last night talked about a patient who had previously refused treatment being restrained and intubated, once he became incapable of voicing his refusal - she described it as "torturing the patient." Insisting on administering insulin to a patient so that his body will survive to die a slower and more frightening death seems little different to me. For that matter, so does limiting the morphine administered to non-lethal doses in order to eke out a few more days or weeks at the end of a person's life. And that is ALL the prohibition on physician-assisted suicide accomplishes. |
|
osunad Member Posts: 3 |
posted 09-13-2000 12:00 AM
There is a bill in congress now which is a response to the Oregon law allowing PAS. It's aim is to outlaw PAS. It's effect, however, can result in the criminalization of palliative care. If passed it can result in criminal charges being brought against a physician for providing pain medication to a dying patient if the patient dies. Regardless of your views on PAS, let us agree that PAS should be the domain closest to the individual. If we cannot leave it to the individual and the family lets certainly not forfeit the decision to congress. |
|
osunad Member Posts: 3 |
posted 09-13-2000 12:08 AM
quote: We rushed to my Dad's side on August 31 (other side of the country). He had been hospitalized twice over the past 6 months because of pneumonia but were led to believe that he was going to long-term care (ie improving). We arrived to find that he was combative, fluids and foods had been withdrawn and he was gasping for air. No one told us that in the previous incidents he had incurred irreversible lung and kidney damage, but his heart was very strong and so he lingered. The doctor didn't show up until 3 days later after we requested that fluids be re-started but his veins collapsed and we realized the futility. His pain medication was changed and he stopped being combative. We knew that he could hear us. He responded with single words. But the last 3 days were incomprehensible to me, watching him waste away, obviously thirsty (sucked on a wet cloth). Generalizations about the right and wrong of euthanasia are wrong. In my Dad's case, his last week of life there was no growth, no self-actualization, only gasping for air and wasting. Each situation must be judged on its own and demands cooperation between the doctors and the loved ones in deciding when enough is enough. Our attempt to broach this subject with the doctor, once he told us all the facts, was met with "it's against the law and my values". It's not about doctor's values, it's about stopping needless end-stage suffering. Now that I know that attitudes have still not changed, I will prepare to do for myself what doctors don't have the guts to do...help a person to die quietly, peacefully and with dignity. God bless my Dad[/B][/QUOTE] There is presently a shortage of hospice nurses due to the fact that the issue of dying counters the perspective in which they were trained. I find it interesting that a good # of those who are against PAS, happen to be hospice nurses. Hospice nurses are trained within the mentality of a medical model perspective. As a result, the death of a patient represents failure incarnate. In addition, they, and many others in hospice cannot come to terms with the fact that sustaining from all life prolonging efforts is in reality, passive euthanasia. And that by adminisering morphine (the common pain reliever of chioce in the field), active euthanasia is actually taking place. Morphine speeds up the dying process. Now, it is not evoking an event that is not inevitable to begin with, but it does speed up the dying process just the same. So...how bout we all get honest with ourselves. This is a HOT subject now. This is due to the fact that it is time for a change in how we as a society see and deal with death & dying. It is LONG overdue ![/B][/QUOTE] |
|
osunad Member Posts: 3 |
posted 09-13-2000 12:12 AM
Kathy: If I were imminently dying I would want you and my family by my side. Thanks for what you do. quote: |
|
JoyceB Member Posts: 5 |
posted 09-13-2000 01:53 AM
I confess to being torn on this issue. I, too, am an RN but also completing my last year of seminary with plans to become a hospital chaplain upon graduation. I hear the agruments about the slippery slope, when does the right to die become the obligation to die/expectation to die and this could be used to pressure the most marginilzed in our society to take their own lives. From a biblical standpoint, it is rather equivocal. We have Saul who takes his own life after being mortally injured in battle and there seems to be no stigma with this. Judas kills himself according to one Gospel writer but there is not indication of the right or wrong of him doing so. And Jesus doesn't discuss it. (I would like to have the input from other faiths on this to broaden my perspective.) The various denominations take different points of view as well. The Roman Catholics oppose it. It is based on its view that we are to suffer as Christ has suffered. Some Protestant denominations are less doctrinal on the issue. Mercy and compassion undercut their discussions and many may not want assisted suicide to be legalized but would like it to be decriminlized. (In Texas, one can do jail time for assisting with a suicide.) Personally, I can think of situations when assisting suicide may be the most compassionate act BUT not after discussion with the patient and the patient's support system. And any health provider who finds assisting with a suicide against her/his beliefs should be allowed to say no. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this discussion. |
|
Stamm44 Moderator Posts: 63 |
posted 09-13-2000 01:28 PM
quote: Joyce, thanks for posting your message. I am sure that your choice of a chaplain's vocation is a calling that will bring many rewards to you and the patients you counsel. I would add a bit to your description of the Catholic position on physician assisted or any other suicide. While there have been elements of the Church which called on sug=fferers to offer up their suffering as a sharing in Jesus passion, or to accept it in hopes of somehow finding greater spiritual meaning through their experience with pain, the psoition on suicide for the most part is consistent with a belief that life is from the Almighty and that it is His choice when our stay in the world is to end. Taking life then is to usurp the Almighty's province. I think that's along the lines of what many Catholics would say. Most nowadays would also add that easing pain and suffering through institutions like Hospice or via docs who use palliative care is doing God's work. |
|
Joseph Trocchia New Member Posts: 1 |
posted 09-13-2000 10:49 PM
quote: Watching the telecast on doctor assisted deaths it seemed these persons were still essentially alone. Their independent life style kept them separated from community and experiencing the connection I feel is necessary for the stages which come in the last stage of life. It truly contrasts with those who are part of a hospice setting. I think I have made up my mind regarding doctor assisted deaths. I am not in favor of it unless there is some attempt to engage those persons in some form of community before the final decision is made. This telecast was most helpful to me in helping me understand assisted deaths. I think it is too much an example of the emphasis in American with its obession with being independent. This is so much in the American life style that faced now with the aging of American we are unprepared to return to a philosphy of in-terdependence. These four telecast have been wonderful. I congratulate all involved. We owe a deep gratitude to Mr. Moyers and his commitment to share his challenges with America. |
|
angel New Member Posts: 1 |
posted 09-14-2000 12:54 AM
I believe people have the right to decide how much pain they can take and to have the right to end it BEFORE they can't. Once a person has been so drugged they can't make any decisons its to late. I have been told I have a medical problem that will at a later date cause much pain. I will also have to be totally independent on others to care for me and not even be aware of them. I don't want that for myself or my family. We treat our animals in a way so they won't suffer,are we to endure more just because we CAN make the decision for ourselves.My heart goes out to any one that has to watch a loved on suffer and not be able to do anything about it. My children and close friends have all been made aware of MY WISHES. They have all agreed to respect MY CHOICE. I don't say we just go about killing people it's a choice for each person to make for themselves. ' quote: We rushed to my Dad's side on August 31 (other side of the country). He had been hospitalized twice over the past 6 months because of pneumonia but were led to believe that he was going to long-term care (ie improving). We arrived to find that he was combative, fluids and foods had been withdrawn and he was gasping for air. No one told us that in the previous incidents he had incurred irreversible lung and kidney damage, but his heart was very strong and so he lingered. The doctor didn't show up until 3 days later after we requested that fluids be re-started but his veins collapsed and we realized the futility. His pain medication was changed and he stopped being combative. We knew that he could hear us. He responded with single words. But the last 3 days were incomprehensible to me, watching him waste away, obviously thirsty (sucked on a wet cloth). Generalizations about the right and wrong of euthanasia are wrong. In my Dad's case, his last week of life there was no growth, no self-actualization, only gasping for air and wasting. Each situation must be judged on its own and demands cooperation between the doctors and the loved ones in deciding when enough is enough. Our attempt to broach this subject with the doctor, once he told us all the facts, was met with "it's against the law and my values". It's not about doctor's values, it's about stopping needless end-stage suffering. Now that I know that attitudes have still not changed, I will prepare to do for myself what doctors don't have the guts to do...help a person to die quietly, peacefully and with dignity. God bless my Dad[/B][/QUOTE] There is presently a shortage of hospice nurses due to the fact that the issue of dying counters the perspective in which they were trained. I find it interesting that a good # of those who are against PAS, happen to be hospice nurses. Hospice nurses are trained within the mentality of a medical model perspective. As a result, the death of a patient represents failure incarnate. In addition, they, and many others in hospice cannot come to terms with the fact that sustaining from all life prolonging efforts is in reality, passive euthanasia. And that by adminisering morphine (the common pain reliever of chioce in the field), active euthanasia is actually taking place. Morphine speeds up the dying process. Now, it is not evoking an event that is not inevitable to begin with, but it does speed up the dying process just the same. So...how bout we all get honest with ourselves. This is a HOT subject now. This is due to the fact that it is time for a change in how we as a society see and deal with death & dying. It is LONG overdue ![/B][/QUOTE] |
|
John Principe New Member Posts: 1 |
posted 09-14-2000 01:29 AM
As a physician who has dealt with the loss and personal pain of seeing patients suffer on multiple levels- physical, emotional, social and spiritual- i was moved by the balanced perspective on the physician assisted suicide issue. The contrast between the two patients portrayed, ie one having the means in Oregon, the other prohibited in Louisiana was also interesting to experience. The issues of control and autonomy were also emphasized appropriately; it is noteworthy that suffering on all of these levels occurs throughout life and many times does not result in the end of life but a challenge to relieve the suffering and improve the quality of life. The willful act of taking another human's life- killing- cannot be construed as a means that ever justifies the end- the relief of suffering. The issue becomes even further blurred when one considers whose suffering one shall relieve- the patient, the caregiver or society at large? Understanding the social construct in which the Hippocratic Oath was developed- an age of increased patient distrust of physician motives- i often wonder how far we have progressed in that paradigm? The modern day example of physician's witholding care in the managed care model and subsequent need for legislation, The Patient Bill of Rights, to protect patients is a glaring example of physician motives gone astray. I believe that health care professionals in all disciplines must work diligently to find appropriate and morally sound means to relieve suffering; we may not be able to do that completely at this time, but killing humans would certainly deaden the quest for morally sound and compassionate innovations in the most important journey of our lives. [This message has been edited by John Principe (edited 09-14-2000).] |
|
al kurki New Member Posts: 1 |
posted 09-14-2000 02:54 AM
16 years ago this month, my ALS-afflicted father chose Remington (30.06)-assisted suicide well before the stage the Texas horse rancher reached. Whether the means are provided by a physician or "indirectly" by hospice, I hope we have moved past the point of forcing terminally ill to resort to ponderous, violent or painfully protracted means of chosing the time to end their lives. In a note left to our family, my father said, "I knew where I was going, I just decided to take a faster train." Let's make this painful, difficult decision of terminally ill who see full lives only being diminished by feeding tubes and more pain somewhat easier by provided peaceful means. I've seen terminally ill dogs die more peacefully than humans, which is a shame. |
|
ketchamg New Member Posts: 1 |
posted 09-14-2000 12:20 PM
 Issue: Physician-Assisted SuicideIn law school some years ago I wrote a 100 page paper on this issue. I made two ironic points in this paper, which expose the flim-flam double-talk surrounding opposition arguments, which this PBS documentary graphically reveals. First off, this PBS documentary captures one of the ironies, which is . . . that young vibrant persons who are NOT terminal, but who suffer a catastrophic life-threatening illness BUT who cannot afford the medications and medical care they need, are told they may NOT live. Superficial emergency care is guaranteed but not the treatment care which they need to survive their illness. If they do NOT have the money to pay, they may not live, even though they may be young and vibrant with children and with many years to live, if they could receive the treatment they need. They want to live on. They beg to live on. They have a future and a prospect for survival, Yet....they are told they may not live on, because they cannot afford the necessary treatment which is otherwise available. At the other end of this absurdity is the terminal patient who feels s/he has lived a rich, full life, who now wants to gracefully exit the stage before their quality of Life totally disintegrates, given the irreversible and terminal nature of their condition. THESE PATIENTS are told they MUST LIVE ON and they may NOT seek to gracefully and painlessly terminate their lives, i.e., they may not accelerate the time-table for the inevitable, i.e. Imminent Death. This irony constitutes the First flim-flam absurdity in the current legal-social policy controlling this issue. It's called "government in spite of the people." It's called "an anti-human . . . anti-humane" social policy. It's called a social policy that is unfit for human consumption. It is a misanthropic policy driven by sanctimonious dogma, not by compassion. If we had a compassionate, humane policy, these policies would be reversed. Terminal patients who seek a coup de grace would get the same compassion we give to suffering, terminal animals. And young, vibrant non-terminal patients who want to live, would be guaranteed access to the treatment they need. The Second irony captured by the PBS documentary and by my legal paper relates to the legal-political flim-flam which surrounds this issue. Republicans and Democrats both talk about getting the government off our backs. Especially the Republicans. They are constantly telling us that the government has no business meddling in our personal lives, and that the states are in a superior position to decide social policy for the people. YET . . . the Federal government has threatened to legislate new federal laws that would effectively overturn and over-rule the new Oregon law which compassionately recognizes a terminal patient's private interest and right to manage his/her own death, in an pain-free environment of dignity and grace. So in reality, it is quite clear, that there is no real intention to get government off our backs and out of our faces in areas where we most need such relief. So why are we besieged with such blistering, cruel ironies? Simply stated, this is why. Dogma is a nutrient-poor surrogate for compassion. Religious moralists who are, for whatever reason, divorced from, i.e., utterly alienated from Compassion, rely on Dogma as a nutrient-poor substitute. It is the closest they can get to that thing called "LOVE" and "COMPASSION." Many psychologists refer to this defective state as a 'sociopathic' condition. Many psychologists describe this social condition and phenomena as 'epidemic' in scope . . . an entire superficial culture skimming off the surface of Life, as though it was uniquely embracing some profound insight. There is a perfect correlation here. Dogma consistently produces sociopathic results, and Compassion consistently produces humane results. The PBS documentary exposes these issues, the flim-flam arguments and these inverted, contrary inhumane ironies in a graphic manner. The conclusions to be drawn are inescapable. So long as our society and its elected officials embrace the nutrient-poor, sanctimonious, superficial 'dogma' surrogate, in deference to the 'real thing' . . . COMPASSION, we are destined to suffer under the siege of policies which are fundamentally inhumane and unfit for human consumption. When we succumb to compassion rather than dogma, the choices are clear and the current inverted scheme is recognized as anti-human and inappropriate. At the immediate "Family-member / Love Ones" level, we tend to succumb to compassion and its insights. At the larger rationalistic "Social Policy / Political" level we tend to succumb to the arms-length superficial, nutrient-poor dogma surrogate. Only COMPASSION is capable of informing us of the proper and appropriate course for humanity to take. |
|
JoyceB Member Posts: 5 |
posted 09-14-2000 05:27 PM
To ketchamg- Thank you for your provocative comments. But I hope that you don't clump all "religious" people into one category. Many of us struggle with this issue and have grace, mercy and compassion underlying our considerations. One of the underquoted lines of the book of James is "mercy triumphs over judgment" (James 2:13). It seems applicable to this discussion. God's mercy will extend beyond the judgments of humans. |
|
raphael6068 Member Posts: 18 |
posted 09-14-2000 06:44 PM
quote: Dear Stamm44: I am disheartened to find very little in the replies to you and other comments that gives any consideration to the "spiritual" side of your question. I believe Physician assisted suicide is illegal and moraly wrong for the same reason I believe abortion should not be legalized and is also morally wrong. When in death we "pass to the other side" there is much of the unknown awaiting us. But for two thousand years the scriptures have reflected the thoughts of Christ concerning " the other side" in a very critical aspect, when He said(I'm paraphrasing)" You shall not enter into My kingdom untill you have paid the last farthing". To keep this as short as possible I mention that this has been interpreted by the Church as referring to the state of expiation for one's offenses against God and His Commandments. Unless one believes in God, and if one denies that we will ever have to make amends for our sins and offenses against Him, it is almost impossible to convince anyone that the sufferings sent to us(permitted by God) are a blessing in disguise, no matter how bad the suffering or how long thesuffering throughout life and before our death. What a shock for those of us who on dying, discover that we were sent the very means to expiate our evil ways and offenses through the hardships, illnesses, and genuine sufferings in mind and body, and that having accepted them as God's will for us out OF LOVE, our suffering will have been shortened or eliminated and that there were no more "farthings" to be paid. This, of course, touches on the idea of Purgatory, the intermediate place of purification before attaing Heaven. For the Christian, we were told by Christ to "Pick up thy cross and follow me." What else could He have alluded to if not the sufferings entailed in life on this earth? Life is not a guarantee of a soft ride without obstacles and pain- physical, emotional, and mental. The pity of it all is that so many seem to give no thought to their offenses against God and neighbor, and no thought to even the possibility of their having to account for their own personalized evil, Of course, for those who deny an after life after death, their surprise will indeed be great and at the same time a catastrophe that could have been avoided with a little humility, a lot of repentance, and a great acceptance of the gifts and crosses offered by their Creator.. A belief in Hell could be a deterrant for some. Even with the unlimited mercy and forgiveness offered by God and Jesus, it is our personal responsibility to offer our sorrow for our misconduct, ask for the forgiveness with great faith and trust and accept His love. This requires humility and a realization that God is both a loving Father and a just Father. The moment after death will be the great awakening . The opportunities for a timely awakening are with us at every breath we take. It just takes a little humility. God giveth and God taketh away! Everything-and especially LIFE.These views are offered as an objection to physician assisted suicide or any form of suicide.May God bless the dying, for whom He has great sadness. Write me: raphael@dakotacom.net [This message has been edited by raphael6068 (edited 09-14-2000).] |
|
JoyceB Member Posts: 5 |
posted 09-14-2000 09:44 PM
In response to Raphael Assisted suicide is illegal in 49 states and although the Supreme Court did not find a constituional right to die, it did leave the door open for debate on whether each state may consider to make it legal. I appreciate your perspective but I am not in agreement with you "spiritually" speaking. If I am correct, you present the classic Roman Catholic view on this issue. Although most Christians accept some suffering as part of life, there are those of us who do not think that suffering is necessarily redeeming. We are redeemed by God's grace or as Luther would say, we are justified by grace. Christ died for us and our suffering. I am not a better Christian because I suffer. I may come to know about God's grace during my suffering but it isn't necessary to suffer to receive salvation. I find the notion that intolerable suffering brings anyone closer to God difficult to comprehend. For me compassion, mercy and grace are the hallmarks of the Chrisitian faith. Christ's ministry on this earth was to relieve suffering. Suffering is a part of life but I believe that we are not asked to endure it to the point of being intolerable. I don't think God would ask that of us. Christ suffered so we could be free of suffering. If compassion is the motiviation to assist someone in taking his/her life, then are they condemned? I think not for as it says in the book of James-mercy triumphs over judgement. I understand your perspective and recognize that there are many people who agree with you but not all Christians agree on the issue of abortion and on this issue of physician assisted suicide. |
|
raphael6068 Member Posts: 18 |
posted 09-14-2000 10:49 PM
quote: Dear JoyceB- [This message has been edited by raphael6068 (edited 09-15-2000).] |
|
Cheryl RN Member Posts: 2 |
posted 09-14-2000 11:08 PM
I am still haunted by the faces from my ICU days that pleaded and begged me to just kill them to end their misery. How I wish I could have done something better to help control the suffering. We didn't even know then what pain control really was. Huge doses of morphine was unheard of, why someone might get addicted or something! If the 3 hour time limit between shots had not elapsed, then you had to wait it out. How barbaric it seems now. Thank goodness we are getting better and better at easing suffering. PAS poses so many interesting issues. When my Grandmother (who had hospice care in the end) lay dying in the nursing home, she begged for anyone to help her die. How I wished someone could. End stage renal failure for her was horrible. She had been voicing her desire to "just die" for many months. Increasing her pain medication was all we could do. No she was never comfortable, and yes if PAS was available I am sure she would have welcomed it. That then would have been her choice. Probably not mine, but she was the one dying not me. I can not even begin to imagine how patients feel with intractable pain. I have watched patients suffer until I could no longer bear it, and changed my nursing focus. A choice that is so personal should remain that, personal and available IF patients choose it. [This message has been edited by Cheryl RN (edited 09-14-2000).] |
|
Oregonian Member Posts: 8 |
posted 09-15-2000 01:36 AM
What abuse? This is a fiction. I live here. Our state health division carefully monitors all cases. There has been no abuse. Many have obtained the prescription only to decide not to take it. Get the facts first, then distort them however you wish! |
|
Oregonian Member Posts: 8 |
posted 09-15-2000 01:42 AM
quote: Growth. How many people can speak of the potential for "growth" for family and the terminal individual with any authority? Have you ever watched anyone with ALS suffocate?...starve to death?? Can you lean over their body, look into their eyes and say "this is a growth experience." Hospice nurses who advocate an anti-suicide position are (if they are honest) doing so out of a personal religious conviction. |
|
Oregonian Member Posts: 8 |
posted 09-16-2000 12:41 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by raphael6068: [B] Dear JoyceB- Thank you for your reply. Yes, my comments are the classic Catholic response, but I feel it is a true one based on St. Paul's comments on his suffering. "I feel it it true"....and that is the key to this debate. I will forever defend the right of Catholics or anyone else to refuse PAS. But when the Catholic church mounts a legislative/ballot initiative effort (as they did in Oregon) to remove MY right to choose this option I become outraged! If you wish to use every fiber of your being to claw for you next breath, if you wish to spend you final days crying out in pain because St. Paul wants you to....go ahead. But don't insist (or legislate) that I, or my loved ones do so. |
|
raphael6068 Member Posts: 18 |
posted 09-16-2000 11:02 AM
quote: Dear Oregonian- I can sense your outrage in your response to me and to others in this forum. I wish you real peace. As to the Church and its action through the initiative process-I am not aware of it, but, in defense of any such action, the Church that has been told to go forth and preach the gospel cannot remain silent when in its "concience" it sees an evil in PAS, no matter how compassionate PAS seems to be. I am not certain as to the motive of that initiative. I don't want to die screaming with every fibre of my body in pain because St. Paul suggests we offer our pain to the Lord. We should take every advantage of what medicine has to offer to control pain and to remove all extraordinary means to preserve life when there is no point to do so; no tubes, no machines- just allow the dying person to die under sedation for the pain. I think the Church also sees the possibility for serious abuse by some well-meaning doctors who might decide this person has had a sufficiently long life and they will somehow justify the harvesting of organs for the "good" of others. In other words, they will play God. I said in my original comment that "when medicine has done all it can"(pain control, surgery,etc,( then whatever suffering remains for us can be offered to the Lord. We should not minimize the importance of living in and accepting God's will. If He wills that we carry our cross a little longer after all human attempts to assist short of "killing" the patient, then the believer can assume He has a higher purpose than our feeble minds can grasp. Try to see the good in the actions of others and you can subdue the outrage, even if you do not agree with their actions. Real wisdom is based on genuine love of neighbor, and it might require us to standby after all is tried, and watch a loved one linger, but never,never does it allow us to take on the role of God, and take away a life that only He can give. There are times when proud and vain mankind must recognize it does not have all the answers and certainly does not know the mind of God. Of course, a belief in God's existance is necessary for some of this to make any sense at all. God is pure love. He does not wish that suffering on us. We suffer because of the fall of Adam and Eve. Now in our nature, pain is part of living, a consequence of that fall. God didn't do it. We did it. He will turn the evil(pain) to good because He knows what His Son went through on the Cross. He will accept our suffering as a form of our very personalized and crucial offering or sacrifice as we accept His will.Offering our pain that is unavoidable can be one way we offer expiation for our offenses against the law of the Almighty. The time of dying could be our last chance to express our sorrow for our misconduct in this life and accept God's will as a sign of our love for Him. Remembering what happened to Christ on the cross can help us at the time of our passing. If dying is the beginning of a new life for an eternity is it any wonder that it has a spiritual meaning and value and is in fact a sacred time for each of us. With all the horror of the pain and suffering at the time of death, it is still a time of the heroic side of the dignity and value of the human soul.God knows what He is about and we need to trust in Him. We should not tamper with the sacred by taking a life deliberately with an injection. In this country of over 33 million abortions, we can see that life has relatively little value. The real outrage is that we humans are capable of proposing laws that take away life at the beginning and the end of our existance, while saying to the Creator-" This is our business-not yours, so go away and leave us to our proud but miserable selves." [This message has been edited by raphael6068 (edited 09-16-2000).] [This message has been edited by raphael6068 (edited 09-16-2000).] [This message has been edited by raphael6068 (edited 09-16-2000).] |
|
Oregonian Member Posts: 8 |
posted 09-19-2000 10:21 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by raphael6068: [B] Dear Oregonian- I can sense your outrage in your response to me and to others in this forum. I wish you real peace. As to the Church and its action through the initiative process-I am not aware of it, but, in defense of any such action, the Church that has been told to go forth and preach the gospel cannot remain silent when in its "concience" it sees an evil in PAS...
"when it sees an evil in PAS." You keep making my point for me. I again will state that I defend the right of the Catholic church to control the behavior of any of its members who join of their own free will. Where we differ is in the area of your church trying to impose its doctrine on ME through attempts to make Catholic doctrine the law of the State of Oregon or the USA. I also understand (through years of study) the Catholic view on the virtues of pain. There was a time when your church burned people at the stake in order to "save their souls" in a kind of "this hurts me more than it does you" approach to "preaching the gospel." Again...if it works for you (for yourself and your church members) then follow your heart. Leave me to follow my doctrine. I will clearly be unable to convince you to change your belief....and it is important to state that I have no intention of trying to do so. Give me the same respect and keep your Roman church out of my state legislature. Is it not ironic that you seek a law that would send a physician or citizen to jail who seeks to help end the suffering of a human being, while that same law would also send that same person to jail if they unnecessarily prolonged the suffering of an animal? Think about it. |
|
raphael6068 Member Posts: 18 |
posted 09-20-2000 02:40 AM
quote: The Roman Church as an entity is not proposing any legislation. If you research it, you will find that is true. Individual Catholics may have started an initiative as is the right of any citizen or group of citizens in this country.. [This message has been edited by raphael6068 (edited 09-20-2000).] [This message has been edited by raphael6068 (edited 09-20-2000).] |
|
geedel Member Posts: 13 |
posted 09-20-2000 10:54 PM
Those contributors who laud hospice (rightly) and offer it as a sound alternative to assisted suicide are forgetting those incurable diseases that go on and on, wreaking terrible physical, mental, emotional, and social damage long before that magic "six months until death" arrives. It seems to me a responsible person would want to avoid inflicting to much of that damage on his or her family. It also seems to me that some hospice people are just not able to admit that there are circumstances in which the greatest love, the greatest care, the greatest strength and resilience are simply helpless to avoid or mitigate the disaster. The American "can do" spirit, medical training, and sometimes religious belief all conspire to lead some people to believe that "fighting" to the end is the only honorable way. I think that sort of posturing might be appropriate in sports, but long, hopeless illness is not a sport. |
|
Oregonian Member Posts: 8 |
posted 09-24-2000 02:13 AM
Your argument flies in the face of God's law, not man's law.If you attempted to keep a dialogue going on the merits of facts or reasoning, it would reflect well on you, but when you resort to the attack on my Faith based on your obvious prejudices, you have already lost any basis for a reasonable presentation in a dialogue. I take issue with your "Faith," your "facts and reasoning" and argue with it and "attack" it bacause in your previous posts you only offered the standard arguments of "The Church" and all of your supporting points were circular Catholic doctrinal arguments. It is hard to differentiate between you, your arguments and your faith. This is why it is so difficult to debate these issues with the objective of establishing common ground. Your position is firmly rooted in the Catholic/Christian perspective and you refuse to acknowledge that there may be other opinions. In my experience it is usually futile to attempt to establish a civil debate with such a person. The dogma demands that the Christian participant in the debate assume the positions of both advocate and judge.The Christian doctrine is supreme and is not to be seriously subject to debate. "Your argument flies in the face of God's law, not man's law." I would restate this as "Your argument flies in the face of MY God's law." Is it at all possible for you can acknowledge that decent people exist in this world who are not Christian? I am sorry that you feel that I am attacking your faith. I actually (as I have stated before) support and would defend your right to believe whatever you desire. Like you, my Catholic friends always lose their "I wish you peace" demeanor whenever I bring up the not-so-great history of THE Church. I am sorry, but these are historical facts. I only hope that the issue of Christian opposition to PAS will, in perhaps a hundred years, be looked upon with the same critical disdain as the Inquisition, the debate over whether the indigenous peoples of the New World were human and had souls, and the condemnation of Galileo for his belief that the sun was the center of the solar system. I honor and respect your right to refuse PAS. Honor and respect my right to utilize it if I, and my God approve. |
|
raphael6068 Member Posts: 18 |
posted 09-24-2000 01:01 PM
quote: I have respect for your right to express your opinion and I repect your relationship with "your God" . Of course I believe there are millions of decent people on this earth who believe other than as Catholics. And I don't believe all Catholics will go to "Heaven". Those who fail are not failing because they are Catholic but because they did not live their Faith as they claimed to believe. Mark Twain said. "When I think of all the disagreeable people that said they are certain of going to the "good place" when they die, I'm not sure I want to go there!. Heaven for climate, but hell for society!" |
| This topic is 3 pages long: 1 2 3 All times are ET (US) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Technical Problems? | Thirteen/WNET
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.42a
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 1999.